There are numerous definitions of naturalism. Here is one definition with some additional observations from infidels.org:
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is “the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system” in the sense that “nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it.” More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism.
As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/
For the purposes of this discussion, I’m not going to be too insistent on particular definitions, but it seems to me this captures the essence of naturalism: “More simply, it [naturalism] is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes.”
Personally, I’d be on the side of naturalists or at least agnostic if I felt the origin of life question were satisfactorily resolved. So although I have sympathy for the naturalistic viewpoint, I find insistence on it too closed-minded. I don’t think reality operates in a completely law-like, predictable fashion, it only does so mostly, but not always.
The word “natural” can be equivocated to death and is often equated with “ordinary” or “typical” when it should not be. So if someone insists that naturalism is true but wishes to also be fair with the facts and avoid such equivocations, when they comment on the origin of life, they might say:
The origin of life was an atypical and unique event far from ordinary expectation, but many of us presume it happened naturally since supernatural events are not observed in the lab.
That would be the an accurate way to characterize the state of affairs, but this not what is usually said by advocates of naturalistic origins of life. Most origin-of-life proponents insinuate that the origin of life event was not terribly extraordinary, that OOL fits well within “natural” expectation, even though by accepted laws of physics and chemistry and current knowledge, such an event violates the ordinary (dare I say “natural”) expectation that non-living things stay non-living.
Turning to evolution, if someone insists on naturalism, but is at least fair with our present day knowledge, they might say:
It is NOT typical for something as complex as an animal to emerge from a single-celled organism, but we presume it happened naturally since animals share some DNA with single celled creatures.
Again, that would be the an accurate way to characterize the state of affairs, but this is not what is usually said by advocates of naturalistic evolution of life from the first cell. Evolutionists insinuate that the necessary events to evolve an animal from a single cell must not have been terribly extraordinary because animals and single-celled creatures share some similar DNA — the idea is insinuated even though it is a non-sequitur because something can share DNA via extraordinary or atypical events, at least in principle.
Darwin and his supporters argue that most evolution of complex function proceeded via a mechanism which Darwin labeled “natural selection”. However, if Darwin’s claims actually entail highly atypical events rather than ordinary ones, then his label of “natural selection” for how things evolved would be a false advertising label. If major evolutionary changes require highly atypical events, then “highly atypical events almost indistinguishable from miracles” would be a far more appropriate label for Darwin’s proposed mechanism of evolution. Instead, Darwin’s label of “natural” is presumptuous and unproven at best and completely false at worst. For all we know, natural selection prevents major evolutionary change. Michael Lynch points out:
many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection
Michael Lynch
opening, The Origins of Genome Architecture
Many? How about most? No one knows for sure, and thus Darwin’s label of “natural” for “natural selection” is presumptuous. For all we know the correct theory of evolution could be “evolution of significant novel forms by highly exceptional events”.
Animals and single-celled creatures share some DNA, but from all that we know, the transition from single-celled creatures to something as complex as a multi-cellular animal is highly atypical and so far from natural expectation that something of that order of change might likely not happen again in the history of the universe.
If naturalism can accommodate any atypical or extraordinary event as a matter of principle, no matter how improbable, then naturalism can accommodate events that would otherwise be indistinguishable from miracles.
Whether there is a theological dimension with atypical events is a separate question. Can there be an event atypical enough that it warrants supernatural explanations? That’s a philosophical question with probably no formal resolution.
Proponents of naturalistic emergence of biological complexity desperately pretend the sequence of necessary events are not atypical, but rather within the realm of ordinary expectation. Hence they try to render the question of supernatural origins as moot as the question of whether supernatural causes are needed to make ice melt on a hot day.
But imho, efforts to characterize emergence of biological complexity as “not that out of the ordinary” are failing. The more we learn of life’s complexity the more it seems highly atypical events were involved to create them. Perhaps these events were so atypical that they are virtually indistinguishable from miracles of supernatural creation.
I’m certainly not alone in those sentiments:
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation
Ernst Haeckel, 1876
Pasteur’s experiments and those followed from 1862 disproved spontaneous generation. Ernst Haeckel’s 1876 quote shows how false ideas like spontaneous generation die a slow death. Haeckel’s quote symbolizes how naturalism seems inherently uncomfortable with anything that suggests a highly atypical event actually happened somewhere in the past.
I provided three already regarding RNA alone.
A. Stanley Miller’s half-life analysis of RNA (no life formed)
B. Saladino’s RNA world without water, but formamide ( no life formed and no water to help it form)
C. The experiment of RNA Auto hydrolysis that shows half-lives as short as 4 seconds (no life formed).
That said, let me reference biochemist Larry Moran:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/bye-bye-rna-world.html
So RNA first won’t work. DNA first won’t work (anyone really believe free floating DNA in water will create life?) Amino acids first won’t work (the polymers hydrolyze, further the polymers need to be in the right sequence to form requisite enzymes like topoisomerase, etc.
So relatively speaking the origin of life is atypical relative to other physical processes that proceed with far more ease like say the rotting of something that died.
But if it did happen only once in the universe, that would mean it is an atypical event.
A rhetorical question: Do you believe extra terrestrial life exists, and if it did do you think it will inevitably evolve intelligence, or do you think we are alone in the universe. My former professor from many moons ago who is a cosmologist but also an OOL researcher, James Trefil, wrote a book on why he thinks we are alone and that intelligent life is unique to Earth and no where else in the Galaxy.
Here is one review:
If so, we are an atypical phenomenon.
My own prejudice, for whatever little it’s worth, is that life is probably quite common in the universe but that complex intelligent life is exceedingly rare. So rare, in fact, that the prospects for encountering an alien civilization (if there are any) is practically nil.
I’m a proponent of membrane first abiogenesis.
As much as I respect that viewpoint, this has a consequence. Even if God existed and he worked a miracle for such a die-hard naturalist, the die-hard naturalist could then take that miracle and claim “this is evidence such things happen naturally”!
As I suggested, there is probably no formal resolution to the question as to whether there exists in principle a phenomenon so atypical as to warrant a supernatural cause. For such questions, every person probably has their own threshold for what would be convincing to them.
If one actually held to this view:
Then even if God existed and worked miracles, one could find ways to disbelieve.
The emergence of biological complexity is enough to persuade me God exists, but obviously that doesn’t convince others. I respect that, but it’s not for me.
My thought today is that all intelligent species go through a stage of inventing religions and the death throes of those religions tend to exterminate those species just before they get to the point of colonizing the galaxy. I figure we’ve got 20-30 years left.
I’ll try for a more optimistic solution to the Drake Equation tomorrow.
It’s Frediean skepticism.
For folks like this there is absolutely nothing that would convince them that they are mistaken.
peace
Kantian Naturalist,
Does this assume that life self assembling from chemicals is not a rare event? Or at least abundant enough for the vast resources of the universe to support multiple origin events. Does this assume that life can take a simpler form than what Craig Venter has working in his lab which is a bacteria of around 500 genes?
IMO the technology in this microscopic organism is orders of magnitude more complex than any human design. The 500 genes need DNA to become ordered in order to manufacture the proteins to sustain life. The genetic code required for this has no known cause except intelligence. So if my hypothesis is correct, 3.5 billion years ago technology existed on earth that was more complex than the space shuttle and smaller than the size of a pin. And the cause is 🙂
We listen to the religious folk. They say:
God sent AIDS as a punishment. God used that hurricane as a punishment. God sent that earthquake as a punishment. And etc.
If the religious people keep saying that their god acts through natural causes, why should we suppose that there could be supernatural causes?
I wonder why creos oppose the idea of extraterrestrial life so vehemently. Is the believe that you were specially created not enough to please your egos that you need to be the only ones in the universe?
The more basic issue is that one would expect if there is a great God, he would be as obvious, if not more obvious than the air we breathe and the people we meet. If God interacted with us like we interact on the internet or with people in person, except that he also worked miracles in real time and every day, then it would be easier to believe.
For those reasons, I would otherwise tend to be an atheist or at least an agnostic. I’ve come to accept God has chosen not to be obvious, and I believe in God today because of the issue of biological complexity. Were it not for the issue of biological complexity, I’d probably be in agreement with most of the TSZ regulars.
I respect if people won’t believe unless they see a miracle before their very own eyes and maybe hearing the voice of God too boot. My threshold isn’t quite that high. The emergence of life is a miracle enough for me.
stcordova,
What a friend we have in Larry!
One aspect frequently forgotten is that life emerging to noticeable population on a sterile earth does not have the same probability as life emerging on a populated planet. That is one potential reason for the rarity of observation. Not actually looking is another.
It’s true we creationists want to think we’re special. I can’t speak for them, but I can speak for myself.
I don’t oppose ETs vehemently. However, if we are alone in the universe, then as you say we are special in God’s sight, but also, it suggests again we are atypical and privileged, and being atypical and privileged suggests we are of a miraculous origin, and if so, then that is evidence there is a God, because where there are miracles, there must be a Miracle Maker.
As I said, I don’t oppose ET’s vehemently, but regarding UFOs, like most creationists, to the extent they aren’t optical illusions or hallucinations, we believe they are of demonic origin. Ironically the question is also tied to the creation/evolution debate. It is articulated in this book by the head of the organization that was split off from Answers in Genesis, Gary Bates.
This is his book:
Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection
It was one of the best-selling creationist books ever!
I’m not assuming anything here. As I indicated, I’m expressing my prejudice. A prejudice is (etymologically) a pre-judgment — it is what one is inclined to believe, or biased towards believing, prior to a sober and objective assessment of the evidence.
My prejudice is that the background law of physics in this universe are biased towards the emergence of life. I say that because the laws of physics in this universe favor the spontaneous emergence of self-maintaining far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems under specific conditions. There is not much of a gap between such systems and properly autopoeitic systems that display the organizational closure and thermodynamic openness necessary (and sufficient??) for life.
As to why it is the case that our universe has the right laws of physics to be biased towards life, I am officially agnostic.
stcordova,
So, what does work?
Says a lot about the intellectual level of your camp. That’s taking crackpot to the next level
This won’t do, Sal. Miller’s work illustrates the point I was making. Do you see how the half-life varies with temperature? I’m dubious of your interpretation regarding B and C as you don’t give proper references.
That’s not what I take from Larry Moran’s OP and especially the comments.
I agree that neither DNA first nor Proteins first seems a likely scenario so no need to mention them again
Decomposition by rotting involves bacteria and other microorganisms and other organisms specialising in exploiting dead matter as a food source. Decay needs living organisms. Doesn’t happen in a sterile environment.
Once life gets a hold, there is little opportunity for another abiogenesis event in the same environment.
I suspect there are other lifeforms out there somewhere that we will never be aware of due to the vast distances involved. But I still hedge my bets till a more thorough search on Mars happens. If traces of previous primitive life were found then that is either strong evidence for Panspermia (if it has similarities to terrestrial life) or if not related, then life must be common, if it got started on two adjacent planets orbiting one insignificant star.
Kantian Naturalist,
I agree with you that the laws of physics are set up for life to occur and that we can study many of these laws in the natural world. What is missing, however, is the emergence of genetic information.
The order of the chemicals A,T,C,G that translate into the molecular machines that life requires. This code exists in 3 letter increments ( i.e. AAT) and translates to a specific amino acid type that starts the sequence that builds amino acid based molecular machines(proteins). The ways to arrange this code grows exponentially with the length of the protein sequence. IMO this results in a very complex code which has to be designed. There is nothing that I am aware of in the laws of physics that can do this. The origin appears to be outside space-time.
Do you have any idea or thoughts how the laws of physics can generate genetic information adequate to sustain life?
This does not appear to be the case. There is a considerable volume of the universe where we are yet to observe life. As in, all of it apart from our little bit.
And we’d expect to see some sort of sign by now if physics was set up for life to occur, don’t you think? Or are we somehow special and ahead of the curve there?
Why is there not life on Mars? On the sun?
Perhaps when a physical change happens, such as the appearance of a new sub-environment (a niche if you will) some latent possibility in an existing population could find itself promoted due to it’s effect as it’s cycled through via random natural changes? Then that “information” is written, as the change in frequency in that population of that bit of genetic infomration? Could it be something like that?
Alan Fox,
The only life we can observe contains DNA, RNA, Proteins and multi protein complexes. All the chickens and eggs have to show up at once.
Do have any evidence that if you are missing any one of these elements that life is sustainable?
Do you think life is sustainable without a DNA repair mechanism?
We could be missing the Sun life because it’s nocturnal.
OMagain,
How would you see a ribosome evolving through this process?
What process? I described some ideas and thoughts, as you requested. If you want process there is untold available. But, to answer your question:
Slowly and in a large population that already had some parts of it already in some form. There’s loads of research on how the ribosome evolved, some random link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2926754/
Loads of process there.
I’ve had some similar thoughts about the dark side of the Moon….
Could you imagine a population of replicators that only got one shot at it?
I think the problem is your implied definition of “life”. As we know from earlier discussions you consider the smallest unit of “life” to be basically the modern cell. As such a “spontaneous” origin is indeed as impossible as impossible gets.
So slow hand clap right there for you colwed.
The only racing cars we can observe contains wheels, gears, crankshafts and multi speed gearbox complexes. All the chickens and eggs have to show up at once.
Do have any evidence that if you are missing any one of these elements that racing cars are sustainable?
Do you think F1 is sustainable without a ENGINE repair mechanism?
OK, we’ll add basic probability calculations to the long list of things about which you are clueless. Biology, genetics, paleontology…
OMagain,
from the paper you cited. Loads of process 🙂
The process is they lie in the RNA world. Where in the RNA world did the volume production of proteins form without a stable DNA molecule to hold the genetic information for volume production? Where did this genetic information come from to form in production a 50 protein complex? Do you really think sustainable catalytic processes are possible without a ribosome?
Adapa,
Ad hominem arguments are your talent 🙂 Statistics not so much.
OK genius, show us your whiz-bang IDiot math. What is the probability of any specific ordering when 208 unique cards are dealt out sequentially?
OMagain,
You bet it would not be. If like a living cell it could self replicate 🙂
We know how to calculate those probabilities under a design hypothesis. 🙂
LoL!
Is this one of your jokes? Don’t get me wrong, I often enjoy them, but those probabilities would be great
Adapa,
This is not the right question. The right question is if I was able to predict the exact order of the cards after they were dealt and before looking at them would the deck have been a fair deck and properly shuffled. Your analogy needs to match the real issue facing evolution.
It’s the exact thing I posted before. You ran your mouth and said the probability calculations were wrong so show us the right IDiot ones.
Yes. However, Allan sounded as if he was being completely serious.
RNAs will decay spontaneously even without the enzymes present. If there is water, the proteins will break apart naturally by themselves. The proteins will also racemize over time. DNAs also have a half life in a dead body.
I gave links to he papers which are freely available.
But as with the case of the topoisomerase molecule and many of the others that are part of the replication sequence of a cell, it doesn’t emerge easily from a random collection of amino acids, and natural selection isn’t a good explanation for it’s emergence since it is life critical, and there will be nothing for selection to select if the cell isn’t replicating, which means it needs something like topoisomerase to already be in place!
I looked at the UNIPROT database and topoisomerase 1 has about 760 amino acids. If even 40 of those 760 are required to be in specific positions to make a topoisomerase 1 or some reasonable facsimile, the improbability is on the order of 1 out of 20^40. But lets be generous and say 10 out the 760 are needed so probability is that topoisomerase can emerge 1 out of 20^10 times. But this chance emergence of topoisomerase makes little sense if there are other proteins simultaneously needed.
Btw, depicted below is a topoisomerase II molecule. It has in the ball park of 1500 amino acids. Note the symmetry. Symmetry like that doesn’t emerge randomly, so to say only 10 amino acids are needed to make something like a topoisomerase II molecule functional (symmetry and all) is absurdly generous.
Say we need proteins simultaneously of similar improbability as tompoisomerase because they are life critical. Then the improbability of such a system is is 1 out of (20^10)^10 = 20^100 ~= 10^130. In actuality it would be more remote than that since primitive cells require at least a couple hundred proteins. Craig Ventner listed his minimal genome at 240 essential genes and 229 quasi-essential genes.
If anyone doesn’t like my numbers, they are welcome to provide their own in this discussion.
Of course there could be an infinite number of ways to make life, but that doesn’t make life inevitable. The calculation I provided would still be valid assuming there are other ways to make life because it is essentially measuring the necessary integration of a system of that complexity. I’m not saying there is only one way to make life.
If you want to believe life isn’t that improbable, I respect that. But I’ve stated why I don’t think life as complex and precise in construction as even the simplest cell should be expected to emerge spontaneously on any planet.
dazz,
.
Similar to knowing the probability you can recite your own telephone number 🙂
Why on earth would that sound as a joke to you? An sterile earth is a huge niche readily available. If life emerged in it’s simplest form now we would expect those simple organisms to get quickly out-competed by organisms with billions of years of evolution under their belt
It’s your analogy what needs to match the real issue facing evolution. You are looking at the DNA code and claiming it’s highly improbable based on it’s size: your analogy corresponds to the random hand and it’s plain wrong. Will it ever sink? Not holding my breath
Adapa,
Your probability calculations were fine if you described the scenario properly.
In biology we are trying to find the cause of new genetic material. The neo darwinian explanation is random mutation followed by selection. If I look at a functional cell with all of it’s functioning molecular machines the question is what is the likelihood that all that genetic information was created by a random process aided by selection once function replication and advantage was achieved.
The question is not what is the probability of the DNA sequences you are observing.
The question is what is the probability of the mechanism you hypothesized being the cause of the sequence you are observing.
So if you were dealt 3 straight flushes in a row. What is the chance that the cards you are dealt were from a fair deck shuffled properly?
dazz,
The real issue facing evolution is can we attribute what we are observing to a process that is primarily driven by random change. This is problem is the primary driver of the evolution pow wow in London.
Would you ever attribute 3 perfect bridge hands to a fair dealer.
Sheesh. Sometimes I wonder whether everyone gets this joke but me.
Nearly EVERY event that happens in this reality is vanishingly unlikely. Which is to say, infinitesimally likely and astronomically unlikely. Get specific enough, and everything that happens is both miraculously unlikely and unique. In human terms, what are the chances you’d meet exactly the people you’ve met, much less in which order, at what times, leading to what consequences. All unique, for all of us.
By observation, what prevents the chain(s) of events leading up to the original abiogenesis on earth is the life currently here. If current life had evolved in the absence of atmospheric oxygen, a second abiogenesis event would probably be just as unlikely, fighting against over 4 billion years of evolution. We can say a DIFFERENT sort of life appeared before atmospheric oxygen, but we can’t say a MORE LIKELY sort of life appeared under those conditions.
Defining natural and supernatural in terms of one another gets us nowhere, with the possible exception that since only the natural is known, the “supernatural” must remain undefined and most likely meaningless.
Positing some all-powerful, all-knowing mind (for which there is NO evidence) as a way to “answer” questions we haven’t figured out yet, simply replaces the known-to-be-unlikely with the known-to-be-preposterous. If you MUST posit such a mind for reasons of misguided toilet-training. trying to rationalize it as the “cause” of reality (in all it’s vanishingly improbable glory) only looks desperate.
The distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism is the difference between ignoring the imaginary, and denying the imaginary. Fortunately, the imaginary need not victimize those looking for knowledge, no matter whether it’s ignored or denied.
I did describe the my scenario properly. You’re the one who stuck your foot in your mouth. You do that a lot on many different websites I’ve noticed.
For the two billionth time some IDiot Creationist describes evolution as being completely random and forgets about the feedback provided by selection. When will the ID-Creationists ever get it right?
Would you ever attribute 3 perfect bridge hands to a fair dealer.
Let’s add feedback. The rules of the game say you can discard and redraw up to five cards at a time. Your discards are added to the undealt deck and reshuffled before each redraw. You can do this as many times as you like. What is the probability you will end up with a perfect bridge hand?
Adapa,
Aided by selection. Please read carefully before responding or you are just another evotard 🙂
In other words, what is the likelihood that 4 billion years of biological development would have followed the path it did. I’d say, near zero. NOW, if you were to ask the likelihood that biological history would have followed SOME path, I’d say the probability approaches 1. Restart history a billion times, we’d get a billion sequences leading to a billion different biologies. I have no estimate of how likely any given history would produce some god-botherer rationalizing HIS god on the grounds of how unlikely HIS history was, in his opinion.
Yet you’re the one who continually embarrasses himself with your public displays of ignorance in both biology and mathematics.